> I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slav

> I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife. You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you. > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans). > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date. Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself. History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.